Mayanka Chandrashekar, Jordan Tschida, Jeffrey R Strawn, Heidi A Hanson, Daniel Santel, Ian Goethert, Anuj J Kapadia, Tracy Glauser, John Pestian, Greeshma A Agasthya
{"title":"诊断儿童焦虑症时心理健康与非心理健康临床医生专业词汇使用模式的比较","authors":"Mayanka Chandrashekar, Jordan Tschida, Jeffrey R Strawn, Heidi A Hanson, Daniel Santel, Ian Goethert, Anuj J Kapadia, Tracy Glauser, John Pestian, Greeshma A Agasthya","doi":"10.1016/j.jpeds.2025.114735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the utilization patterns of expert vocabulary (EVo) in diagnosing pediatric anxiety between mental health and non-mental health clinical notes from electronic health records to understand the role of Evo in informing classification and decision-making in anxiety diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We conducted a retrospective study using a cohort less than age 25 from Cincinnati Children's Hospital including 897 685 patients with 61 586 446 notes. We analyzed EVo, collected from mental health clinicians, in both mental and nonmental health notes. We compared classification accuracy using EVo-based patient-level embedding from all clinical notes, mental-health notes, and nonmental health notes for 2 tasks: 1) pre-vs postdiagnosis anxiety patients, and 2) prediagnosis anxiety vs nonanxiety patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EVo usage was highest in prediagnosis anxiety, lower in nonanxiety, and lowest in post-diagnosis. Classification models using EVo features from all, mental-health, and non-mental health notes showed similar F1 scores for prediagnosis anxiety (0.70 ± 0.2 for 2 categories). For anxiety vs nonanxiety classification, all clinical and nonmental health notes had better F1 scores than mental-health notes (above 0.90 for 3 categories). There was a notable difference in class-wise performance across both tasks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are significant differences in anxiety EVo use between mental health and nonmental health clinicians. Despite less anxiety-specific terminology, non-mental health notes still captured key aspects of patient presentations, emphasizing the importance of including all clinicians' notes in analysis. EVo's utility for anxiety classification is most effective in prediagnostic phases, suggesting the need for a dedicated diagnostic lexicon and further study before incorporating EVo into classification models.</p>","PeriodicalId":54774,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"114735"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Expert Vocabulary Usage Patterns Between Mental Health and Nonmental Health Clinicians When Diagnosing Pediatric Anxiety Disorders.\",\"authors\":\"Mayanka Chandrashekar, Jordan Tschida, Jeffrey R Strawn, Heidi A Hanson, Daniel Santel, Ian Goethert, Anuj J Kapadia, Tracy Glauser, John Pestian, Greeshma A Agasthya\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpeds.2025.114735\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the utilization patterns of expert vocabulary (EVo) in diagnosing pediatric anxiety between mental health and non-mental health clinical notes from electronic health records to understand the role of Evo in informing classification and decision-making in anxiety diagnoses.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We conducted a retrospective study using a cohort less than age 25 from Cincinnati Children's Hospital including 897 685 patients with 61 586 446 notes. We analyzed EVo, collected from mental health clinicians, in both mental and nonmental health notes. We compared classification accuracy using EVo-based patient-level embedding from all clinical notes, mental-health notes, and nonmental health notes for 2 tasks: 1) pre-vs postdiagnosis anxiety patients, and 2) prediagnosis anxiety vs nonanxiety patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EVo usage was highest in prediagnosis anxiety, lower in nonanxiety, and lowest in post-diagnosis. Classification models using EVo features from all, mental-health, and non-mental health notes showed similar F1 scores for prediagnosis anxiety (0.70 ± 0.2 for 2 categories). For anxiety vs nonanxiety classification, all clinical and nonmental health notes had better F1 scores than mental-health notes (above 0.90 for 3 categories). There was a notable difference in class-wise performance across both tasks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are significant differences in anxiety EVo use between mental health and nonmental health clinicians. Despite less anxiety-specific terminology, non-mental health notes still captured key aspects of patient presentations, emphasizing the importance of including all clinicians' notes in analysis. EVo's utility for anxiety classification is most effective in prediagnostic phases, suggesting the need for a dedicated diagnostic lexicon and further study before incorporating EVo into classification models.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54774,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pediatrics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"114735\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2025.114735\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2025.114735","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Expert Vocabulary Usage Patterns Between Mental Health and Nonmental Health Clinicians When Diagnosing Pediatric Anxiety Disorders.
Objective: To compare the utilization patterns of expert vocabulary (EVo) in diagnosing pediatric anxiety between mental health and non-mental health clinical notes from electronic health records to understand the role of Evo in informing classification and decision-making in anxiety diagnoses.
Study design: We conducted a retrospective study using a cohort less than age 25 from Cincinnati Children's Hospital including 897 685 patients with 61 586 446 notes. We analyzed EVo, collected from mental health clinicians, in both mental and nonmental health notes. We compared classification accuracy using EVo-based patient-level embedding from all clinical notes, mental-health notes, and nonmental health notes for 2 tasks: 1) pre-vs postdiagnosis anxiety patients, and 2) prediagnosis anxiety vs nonanxiety patients.
Results: EVo usage was highest in prediagnosis anxiety, lower in nonanxiety, and lowest in post-diagnosis. Classification models using EVo features from all, mental-health, and non-mental health notes showed similar F1 scores for prediagnosis anxiety (0.70 ± 0.2 for 2 categories). For anxiety vs nonanxiety classification, all clinical and nonmental health notes had better F1 scores than mental-health notes (above 0.90 for 3 categories). There was a notable difference in class-wise performance across both tasks.
Conclusions: There are significant differences in anxiety EVo use between mental health and nonmental health clinicians. Despite less anxiety-specific terminology, non-mental health notes still captured key aspects of patient presentations, emphasizing the importance of including all clinicians' notes in analysis. EVo's utility for anxiety classification is most effective in prediagnostic phases, suggesting the need for a dedicated diagnostic lexicon and further study before incorporating EVo into classification models.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Pediatrics is an international peer-reviewed journal that advances pediatric research and serves as a practical guide for pediatricians who manage health and diagnose and treat disorders in infants, children, and adolescents. The Journal publishes original work based on standards of excellence and expert review. The Journal seeks to publish high quality original articles that are immediately applicable to practice (basic science, translational research, evidence-based medicine), brief clinical and laboratory case reports, medical progress, expert commentary, grand rounds, insightful editorials, “classic” physical examinations, and novel insights into clinical and academic pediatric medicine related to every aspect of child health. Published monthly since 1932, The Journal of Pediatrics continues to promote the latest developments in pediatric medicine, child health, policy, and advocacy.
Topics covered in The Journal of Pediatrics include, but are not limited to:
General Pediatrics
Pediatric Subspecialties
Adolescent Medicine
Allergy and Immunology
Cardiology
Critical Care Medicine
Developmental-Behavioral Medicine
Endocrinology
Gastroenterology
Hematology-Oncology
Infectious Diseases
Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine
Nephrology
Neurology
Emergency Medicine
Pulmonology
Rheumatology
Genetics
Ethics
Health Service Research
Pediatric Hospitalist Medicine.